Carl Heneghan

And the difference was a difference of 1.7 versus 1.8% between the intervention and the usual care arm.

and that difference was not statistically significant, but there was an increase in induction of labour and a decreased incidence of augmentation of labour, which is stimulation of the uterus.

So this is great quality improvement.

This is how it should be done in practice.

We have a particular non-drug intervention, if you like.

It's a bit of a package.

It includes education, ultrasound, and at a practice level,

And by doing it in this way, we become very clear that actually in low-risk pregnancies, we shouldn't be using ultrasound.

Quite simple.

Stunned into silence, I've explained that so well, Helen MacDonald has nothing to say.

So to me, it seems that the most important thing they were trying to with fetal growth restriction.

Now, the problem with that is wherever you are, there will be a proportion of baby, which will be the 10 centiles, will be abnormal or you consider abnormal.

So you will always have a potential to intervene.

And that's why you have the increased induction of labour.

Now, what the interesting issue is, though, that you really are interested in the really important clinical outcomes, the perinatal outcomes.

And I think what that discounted.

But what's interesting here, the Dutch Ministry of Health considered introducing routine orthognography.

Therefore, this is a policy initiative.

And this is the way to answer policy initiatives.

And there's a really interesting...